Capitalists and socialists square off in Kennedy School debate

"Capitalism vs. Socialism: Which is the Moral System?" That question
was at the heart of a spirited debate Wednesday sponsored by the Institute
of Politics at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

Arguing for the socialist side were Jim Chapin, former national director
of the Democratic Socialists of America, and Jack Clark, member of the
local board of DSA. John Ridpath, professor of economics and intellectual
history at York University, and Harry Binswanger, editor of The Ayn Rand
Lexicon, defended capitalism.

The debate started with 10 minutes argument from each speaker, followed
by questions from the moderator and the audience.

Binswanger and Ridpath defended capitalism on the basis of objectivism,
the philosophy developed by novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand.

There are only two alternatives for human interaction, Binswanger argued.
"Men can deal with one another by persuasion and voluntary action or by
force." The basic social principle of objectivism, he said, is to bar the
initiation of physical force.

Binswanger defended this principle by appealing to the role of reason in
human survival. To live, he said, humans must produce and this requires
rational thinking and action: "reason is man's means of survival." Force,
he said, is anti-reason: "you must be left free to think and act on your
own judgment without fear of force, jail, or fines." Thus, he
concluded, freedom is the fundamental social value.

Ridpath extended Binswanger's argument by arguing that if an individual
should not initiate the use of force then society shouldn't either.
"Society is not some `collective organism' that comes into being when
humans cooperate . . . What is morally wrong for an individual does not
suddenly become right for society."

The principle of individual rights, he said, holds that all humans should
be free from the initiation of physical force. "A moral government is one
that protects individual rights, not one that violates them."

He went on to define capitalism as "the social system that recognizes
individual rights in which the use of physical force is outlawed." He said
that capitalism requires a full separation of economics and politics with
no tariffs, quotas, regulations, minimum wage laws, or welfare programs.

Socialists challenge independence

Rather than defending socialism, the socialists, Chapin and Clark, spent
most of their time questioning objectivism, evenparts not mentioned
explicitly by the capitalists.

Chapin challenged the objectivist view that independence is a virtue; he
said that we all begin and end our lives dependent on others. The
objectivist emphasis on independence is "a desperate fear to admit human
frailty," he said. As to Binswanger's claim that selfishness is a virtue,
Chapin said that "I've found that doing things for others is a better way
of life."

Both Chapin and Clark argued that "capitalism is violence." Chapin
reminded the audience of the fights over land in the 19th century; "private
property," he said, "is theft." Clark said that "coercion and violence
spread from poverty and starvation."

Chapin and Clark also challenged Binswanger's claim that wealth is
created by individual effort. "Wealth," said Clark, "is created from a
social process." Chapin went on to challenge Ayn Rand's position that we
deserve everything we have; we must "go beyond the concept of earning and
deserving" he said.

Sweden is the model

In their defense of socialism, the socialist side was more concerned with
pointing to a general direction for society than for giving technical,
philosophic arguments. "We are concerned with compass points for society,"
said Clark, "broad ideals towards which we can move."

The ideal for the socialists is what they called the "advanced social
democracies" of northern Europe, in particular Sweden. Chapin contrasted
this form of socialism with "barracks communism;" he said that he is after
a "interplay of socialist ideas and capitalist ideas." "If Rand was right,"
said Chapin, "then the social democracies of northern Europe would be in
trouble." Instead, he claimed, they are doing better than America.

Clark stressed that the ideal society must include "social and economic
rights" in addition to political rights. "Social and economic rights are
widely accepted in the West and were widely accepted among the Chinese
students at Tiananmen Square."

Questioning the morality

of socialism

The capitalists' main criticism of the socialist argument was that it
failed to discuss the morality of socialism. Ridpath claimed that the
socialists gave no definitions, no discussion of morality, and no
justification of the initiation of force on behalf of the government
inherent in any socialist system.

"Bringing in Christ, Indians, and labor unions is not a philosophic
argument," Ridpath said, referring to some of the anti-capitalist remarks
made by the socialists. Instead of arguing for the morality of socialism,
he said, they "substituted snide remarks and anti-capitalist cracks."

Binswanger added that "the socialist presentation of statistics without
underlying principles or definitions is intellectual fraud."

Capitalists called unrealistic

The capitalists took heat from both the socialists and the audience for
their discussion of philosophy, especially Ayn Rand's philosophy. Chapin
felt that, although "Ayn Rand was fun to read," her philosophy was not
realistic. A student from the audience asked "what does your philosophy
have to do with reality?"

Ridpath responded by arguing that philosophy is important. He said that
"the human mind deals with reality in an abstract way" and that it is
through abstractions that one understands the nature of knowledge and human
life. He said that the 20th century is "awash with blood" because of wrong
ideas. Addressing the students directly, he said "ideas are important. Your
future is at stake."

One issue both sides agreed on was that the ethics of Christianity
implies the politics of socialism. "One thing I admire about Rand," said
Chapin, "is her honesty. She was an atheist. She said that Christianity and
capitalism are incompatible, and she was right." Both sides were united
against the religious right; during the question period, Binswanger said
"if you're a Christian, please become a socialist -- we don't want you."